Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
62
ETHNOCENTRISM
ETHNORELATIVISM
As illustrated in Figure 1, the first three DMIS orientations are conceptualized as more ethnocentric, meaning that the tenants of ones own culture
are experienced as central to reality in some way. The default condition of a
typical, monocultural primary socialization is Denial of cultural difference.
This is the state in which ones own culture is experienced as the only real
onethat is, that the patterns of beliefs, behaviors, and values that constitute a culture are experienced as unquestionably real or true. Other cultures
are either not noticed at all, or they are construed in rather vague ways. As a
result, cultural difference is either not experienced at all, or it is experienced
as associated with a kind of undifferentiated other such as foreigner or
immigrant. In extreme cases, the people of ones own culture may be perceived to be the only real humans and other people viewed as simpler
forms in the environment to be tolerated, exploited, or eliminated as necessary.
People with a Denial worldview generally are disinterested in cultural
difference even when it is brought to their attention, although they may act
aggressively to avoid or eliminate a difference if it impinges on them. For
example, many dominant-culture U.S. Americans were not aware of the
large numbers of Latinos who shared their communities until the last census
figures were released. In some cases in which I have consulted, a sudden
increase in the Latino population has been met with angry bewilderment
from Anglos, who ask, How could such a thing have happened to our
community? And of course, U.S. Americans are familiar with the phe63
ETHNOCENTRISM
nomenon of white flightthe avoidance reaction of dominant-culture
European Americans to the introduction of African Americans or other people of color to previously all-white neighborhoods.
I would like to stress that Denial is not particularly American. In my observation, a Denial worldview in Germans, Italians, or Japanese yields a
similar reaction to immigrants. Nor is this worldview restricted to
dominant-culture folks in American or other societies. Even if they are
forced by economic necessity into interaction with the dominant culture,
people of non-dominant groups with a Denial worldview remain unable to
recognize the cultural dimension of the interaction. For instance, as many
African Americans as European Americans seem to be surprised at cultural
differences between these groups in communication style and nonverbal
behavior. This is because the Denial worldview in both groups only allows
for observations within the familiar categories of race and associated
constructs of deserved or undeserved inequities in political and economic
power. The tendency to use familiar but often simplistic or fallacious
categories of race and ethnicity seems also to characterize the Denial form
of dominant/non-dominant interaction in other societies.
Another way a Denial worldview shows up is as an inability (and disinterest) in differentiating national cultures. For instance, U.S. Americans at
this stage often cannot tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese
cultures, or to distinguish among Gulf State Arabs (e.g. Kuwaitis), Fertile
Crescent Arabs (e.g. Syrians), and Persians (in Iran). While educated Europeans or Asians are generally more knowledgeable than U.S. Americans
about geopolitical issues, at Denial they seem just as likely to neglect these
kinds of cultural differences. For example, Asian sojourners seem to be at
least as inclined as Americans to maintain the exclusive company of their
compatriots, and many Europeans seem oblivious to the cultural factors that
frequently underlie political differences.
The main issue to be resolved at Denial is the tendency to avoid noticing
or confronting cultural difference. People here need to attend to the simple
existence of other cultures, both globally and domestically. Those who are
facilitating this initial recognition (teachers, trainers, friends) need to
understand that Denial is not a refusal to confront the facts. It is instead
an inability to make the perceptual distinctions that allow cultural facts to
be recognized. When facilitators fail to understand the experience of Denial,
they are likely to present cultural information in too-complex ways and to
become impatient at the aggressive ignorance often displayed at this stage.
The resolution of Denial issues allows the creation of simple categories for
particular cultures, which sets up the conditions for the experience of Defense.
64
65
ETHNOCENTRISM
A variation on Defense is Reversal, where an adopted culture is experienced as superior to the culture of ones primary socialization (going native, or passing). Reversal is like Defense in that it maintains a polarized,
us and them worldview. It is unlike Defense in that it does not maintain
the other culture as a threat. Reversal is common among long-term sojourners such as Peace Corps Volunteers, missionaries, corporate expatriates, and
exchange students. Reversal may masquerade as cultural sensitivity, since it
provides a positive experience of a different culture along with seemingly
analytical criticisms of ones own culture. However, the positive experience
of the other culture is at an unsophisticated stereotypical level, and the criticism of ones own culture is usually an internalization of others negative
stereotypes.
Reversal in domestic multicultural relations is an interesting and complicated phenomenon. It appears that some people of the dominant culture
take on the cause of non-dominant cultures in stereotypical way. For instance, in the U.S. a white person of European American ethnicity may become a rabid proponent of African American issues. While it is certainly
not necessarily ethnocentric for anyone to identify with the plight of
historically oppressed people, in this hypothetical case the European
American person sees all black people as saintly martyrs and all white
people (including herself before the conversion) as brutal oppressors. By
changing the poles of the polarized worldview, this person has not changed
her essentially unsophisticated experience of cultural difference.
The resolution of Defense issues involves recognizing the common humanity of people of other cultures. Techniques such as ropes courses or
other experiences that create mutual dependence independent of gender or
race can be effective for this purpose. Facilitators who try to correct the
stereotypes of people in Defense are likely to fall prey to the polarized
worldview themselves, becoming yet another example of the evils of multiculturalism or globalization. The need here is to establish commonality, not
to introduce more sophisticated understanding of difference. When this
resolution is accomplished, the stage is set for a move into Minimization.
Minimization of cultural difference is the state in which elements of
ones own cultural worldview are experienced as universal. The threat associated with cultural differences experienced in Defense is neutralized by
subsuming the differences into familiar categories. For instance, cultural
differences may be subordinated to the overwhelming similarity of peoples
biological nature (physical universalism). The experience of similarity of
natural physical processes may then be generalized to other assumedly natural phenomena such as needs and motivations. The assumption that typolo66
ETHNOCENTRISM
is a position that is perceived and perhaps intended as a political statement.
In any case, the experience is one that minimizes the cultural differences
between the dominant and non-dominant groups in such a way that the
same universal standard (e.g. university entrance requirements) can be
applied to all the groups without bias. When the result of such an
application of standard yields group differences, the explanation by both
dominant and non-dominant Minimizers is that the groups actually differ in
their intelligence, skills, or preparation. The idea that all standards are
necessarily constrained by cultural context does not occur in Minimization.
Current research with the Intercultural Development Inventory, an instrument that assesses the experience of cultural difference in terms of the
DMIS, has shown that Minimization is a kind of transition state between the
constellation of Denial/Defense and the constellation Acceptance/
Adaptation (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). The experience of
Minimization is theoretically ethnocentric in that it takes ones own cultural
patterns as central to an assumed universal reality. In other words, the experience is that all people are essentially similar in ways that explainable by
my own cultural beliefs. However, the experience also includes the ability
to perceive some cultural differences in largely non-stereotypical ways and
to recognize the essential humanness of others.
The missing piece in Minimization, and the issue that needs to be resolved to move into ethnorelativism, is the recognition of your own culture
(cultural self-awareness). In more general terms, this is the ability to experience culture as a context. Only when you see that all your beliefs, behaviors, and values are at least influenced by the particular context in which
you were socialized can you fully imagine alternatives to them. Facilitators
at this stage need to stress the development of cultural self-awareness in
contrast to other cultures before they move into too much detail about the
other cultures. This is the time to introduce the basic culture-general frameworks of intercultural communication (e.g. Bennett, 1998b).
ETHNOCENTRISM
sion of Iraq. I replied that it was possible that she was, but it was also possible that she was making an ethnorelative judgment. The test is whether she
was according full humanity to the Iraqis that she felt should be forcibly
dealt with. So I asked What is good about Saddam Hussein from some
Iraqi perspectives? She said, nothing is good he is a monster and all
Iraqis think so except some evil people who are profiting from his cruelty.
Leaving aside the history of U.S. profits from Iraq, I replied that her concerns were justified she was being ethnocentric. She was imposing her
values on others by making the Minimization assumption that her values
were the most real. Further, she was denying equal humanity to Saddam
Hussein and Iraqis who supported him by labeling them monsters and
evil.
A more ethnorelative approach to the Iraq situation would have been to
recognize that Saddam Hussein is a complex human being whose behavior,
while good in some Arab contexts because it stands up to the Americans
or expresses Arab pride, is nevertheless bad in the context of the current
world consensus about the use of violence and intimidation in domestic
governance. The question then is are you committed to stopping the bad
behavior? Is Saddams behavior sufficiently different from other world
leaders to allow a non-hypocritical intervention? Is the need for intervention important enough to outweigh the principle of national sovereignty?
Are the consequences of interference better than the consequences of not
interfering? The answer to all these questions could be yes. I believe that
had my student considered these and other such questions, and had she then
accorded Hussein and other Iraqis a complexity of motive similar to her
own, then she could have supported the U.S. invasion in an ethnorelative
way. Of course, a different person might make the same considerations and
conclude that the invasion was not supportable. But both positions would be
ethnorelative.
Resolution of the issue of value relativity and commitment allows you
to take the perspective of another culture without losing your own perspective. This is the crux of the next stage.
Adaptation to cultural difference is the state in which the experience of
another culture yields perception and behavior appropriate to that culture.
Ones worldview is expanded to include relevant constructs from other
cultural worldviews. People at Adaptation can engage in empathythe
ability to take perspective or shift frame of reference vis-a-vis other cultures. This shift is not merely cognitive; it is a change in the organization of
lived experience, which necessarily includes affect and behavior. Thus,
people at Adaptation are able to express their alternative cultural experience
in culturally appropriate feelings and behavior. If the process of frame
70
ETHNOCENTRISM
The resolution of authenticity at Adaptation may establish the condition
of the last stage of development. However, movement to the last stage does
not represent a significant improvement in intercultural competence. Rather,
it describes a fundamental shift in ones definition of cultural identity.
Integration of cultural difference is the state in which ones experience
of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different cultural
worldviews. Here, people are dealing with issues related to their own cultural marginality; they construe their identities at the margins of two or
more cultures and central to none. As suggested by J. Bennett (1993), cultural marginality may have two forms: an encapsulated form, where the
separation from culture is experienced as alienation; and a constructive
form, in which movements in and out of cultures are a necessary and positive part of ones identity. Integration is not necessarily better than Adaptation in situations demanding intercultural competence, but it is descriptive
of a growing number of people, including many members of non-dominant
cultures, long-term expatriates, and global nomads.
A certain amount of encapsulated marginality seems to accompany the
ethnorelative experience of non-dominant group members, who may find
themselves caught between their own minority ethnic group and the majority ethnic group. Their ethnic compatriots may perceive them as selling
out to the dominant group, even though they are not fully accepted by the
dominant group. Also, exchange students who have advanced well beyond
Reversal or Defense may again experience debilitating self-criticism or
judgmentalism of others as their cultural identification vacillates. While
people in this condition are quite interculturally sensitive, they lack the
ability to implement that sensitivity in consistently competent ways.
Constructive marginality represents the resolution of the identity issue
of Integration. Here people are able to experience themselves as multicultural.
ETHNOCENTRISM
berto Maturana and Francisco Varela (e.g. Maturana & Varela, 1987; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991), the psycholinguist Edward Sapir and
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956) and more recently George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999), the neuroanatomist
Antonio Damasio (1999), the communicologist Dean Barnlund (1998), and
my own work (Bennett, 1977; Bennett, 1998a; Bennett & Castiglioni,
2004). All these theoreticians refer to how we co-create our experience
through our corporal, linguistic, and emotional interaction with natural and
human (including conceptual) environments. This assumption allows the
DMIS to model a mechanism of intercultural adaptation.
The crux of intercultural adaptation is the ability to have an alternative
cultural experience. Individuals who have received largely monocultural
socialization normally have access only to their own cultural worldview, so
they are unable to experience the difference between their own perception
and that of people who are culturally different. The development of
intercultural sensitivity describes how we gain the ability to create an alternative experience that more or less matches that of people in another culture. People who can do this have an intercultural worldview.
The DMIS supposes that contact with cultural difference generates
pressure for change in ones worldview. This happens because the default
ethnocentric world view, while sufficient for managing relations within
ones own culture, is inadequate to the task of developing and maintaining
social relations across cultural boundaries. Assuming that there is a need for
such cross-cultural relations (as typically is the case, for instance, for long
term international sojourners, members of multinational teams, and for educators, healthcare workers, and other service providers in multicultural
communities), then there is pressure to develop greater competence in
intercultural matters. This pressure may be ignored, so change as a function
of contact is not inevitable (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000).
Each change in worldview structure generates new and more sophisticated issues to be resolved in intercultural encounters. The resolution of the
relevant issues activates the emergence of the next orientation. Since issues
may not be totally resolved, movement may be incomplete and ones experience of difference diffused across more than one worldview. However,
movement through the orientations is posited to be unidirectional, with only
occasional retreats. In other words, people do not generally regress from
more complex to less complex experiences of cultural difference.
Each orientation of the DMIS is indicative of a particular worldview
structure, with certain kinds of cognition, affect, and behavior vis--vis
cultural difference typically associated with each configuration. It is important to note that the DMIS is not predominately a description of cognition,
74
References
Applegate, J. L., & Sypher, H. E. (1988). Constructivist theory and
intercultural communication research. In Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst
(Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in intercultural communication (pp. 4165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Banks, J. A. (1988). The stages of ethnicity: Implications for curriculum
reform. In J. A. Banks, Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (2nd
ed., pp. 193-202). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bamlund, D. (1998). Communication in a global village. In M. J. Bennett
(Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 3551). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. San Francisco:
Chandler.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Dutton.
Bennett, J. M. (1993). Cultural marginality: Identity issues in intercultural
training. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (2nd ed., pp. 109-135). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitiveity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D.
Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural
training (3rd ed., pp. 147-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (2003). Developing intercultural
competence in the language classroom. In D. L. Lange & R. M. Paige
(Eds.), Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture in second language
learning. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
75
ETHNOCENTRISM
Bennett, M. J. (1977). Forminglfeeling process: The perception of patterns
and the communication of boundaries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for
intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179-196.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of
intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the
intercultural experience (2nd ed., pp. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M. J. (1997). How not to be a fluent fooI: Understanding the cultural dimensions of language. In A. E. Fantini, (Vol. Ed.) & J. C.
Richards (Series Ed.), New ways in teaching culture. New ways in
TESOL series II: Innovative classroom techniques (pp. 16-21).
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Bennett, M. J. (Ed.). (1998a). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: A reader. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M. J. (1998b). Intercultural communication: A current perspective.
In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication:
A reader (pp. 1-34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M. J., & Castiglioni, I. (2004). Embodied ethnocentrism and the
feeling of culture: A key to training for intercultural competence. In D.
Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural
training (3rd ed., pp. 249-265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, G. S. (1972). Laws of form. Toronto, Canada: Bantam.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1995). The psychoIogy of nigrescence: Revising the Cross
model. In J. G. Ponterotto, J: M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 93-121).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the
making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Delia, J. G. (1987). Interpersonal cognition, message goals, and organization of communication: Recent constructivist research. In D. L. Kincaid
(Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and western perspectives (pp.
255-273). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Delia, J. G., Crockett, W. H., & Gonyea, A. H. (1970). Cognitive complexity and the effects of schemas on the learning of social structures.
Proceedings of the 78th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 5, 373-374.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
76
77